People v. Penar y Camanse

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246321. June 23, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JAYRIC PENAR y CAMANSE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246321 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus JAYRIC PENAR y CAMANSE, accused-appellant.

After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court reverses and sets aside the Decision 1 dated January 11, 2019 issued by the Court of Appeals, Twenty-First Division, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01815-MIN which affirmed the Decision 2 dated November 17, 2017 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 23 (RTC) finding accused-appellant Jayric Penar y Camanse (accused-appellant) guilty of illegal sale of 0.1717 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride; illegal possession of 0.1644 gram and 0.1894 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride; and illegal possession of one (1) aluminum foil and one (1) blue disposable lighter.

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the Court must determine whether the dangerous drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, 3 reached the court with its identity and integrity preserved. This must be established with moral certainty. 4 In arriving at this certainty, the very nature of prohibited drugs, they being susceptible to tampering and error, circumscribes the burden of the State in prosecuting the crime. 5 In order to obviate any unnecessary doubt as to their identity, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence 6 and prove compliance with the requirements of Section 21, 7 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 8 Strict compliance with these requirements is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity and credibility of the corpus delicti are tarnished and the claim that a violation of RA 9165 was committed by the accused becomes questionable. 9

In this case, several unjustifiable lapses were committed by the apprehending officers in violation of Section 21. First, the insulating witnesses were not present at the time of the seizure of the drugs. 10 Second, the inventory and photograph taking were not conducted at the place of arrest without any justifiable reason. 11 Third, the prosecution failed to present any witness to testify on what measures were put in place to safeguard the seized items from the time they were turned over to the evidence custodian until they were brought to court. 12

Thus, due to these unexplained breaches in the chain of custody rule under Section 21, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the corpus delicti of the offense. Accused-appellant must perforce be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated January 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals, Twenty-First Division, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01815-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant JAYRIC PENAR y CAMANSE is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Resolution be sent to the Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken. A copy shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police for his information.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, pp. 124-137. Penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan concurring.

2.Id. at 46-71. Penned by Presiding Judge Vincent F. B. Rosales.

3. See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 369; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018, 858 SCRA 94, 104; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 142, 152; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, 856 SCRA 359, 370.

4.People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 549, 563, citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).

5.People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020, p. 9, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13405/>.

6.People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 380, 389.

7. The said section reads as follows:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

8.People v. Supat, G.R. No. 217027, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 45, 71.

9. See People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487, 503-504.

10. See People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 6, 2019, 892 SCRA 112; People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA 349; People v. Casco, G.R. No. 212819, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA 322; People v. Gamboa, supra note 4; People v. Callejo, G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 405; People v. Supat, supra note 8.

11. See People v. Amores, G.R. No. 243658, December 10, 2019; People v. Paz, G.R. No. 233466, August 7, 2019; People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; People v. Supat, id.; People v. Diputado, G.R. No. 213922, July 5, 2017, 830 SCRA 172; People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017, 821 SCRA 516; People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017, 821 SCRA 470; People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017, 818 SCRA 122; People v. Angngao, G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 531; People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 221; People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 50; People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014, 714 SCRA 165; People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123.

12. See Cariño v. People, G.R. No. 178757, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 388, 407; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259; People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140; Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.